Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/108922
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWright, D.-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationUniversity of Western Australia Law Review, 2014; 38(1):30-47-
dc.identifier.issn0042-0328-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/108922-
dc.description.abstractThe great barrier faced by the court when awarding the best remedy is the “adequacy of common law remedies” rule. The rule is such that the availability of the equitable remedy is theoretically dependent on the inadequacy of the remedy at law. Importantly it imposes a jurisdictional limitation (or rule). This rule is wrong in theory and not followed in practice. Gradually this rule has morphed into a consideration in the award of remedies. Unfortunately this consideration uses essentially the same wording as the rule, so while textbooks and judges still employ this language, now they are essentially talking about the consideration, not the rule. In its own way and at its own pace, each jurisdiction is searching for the best or most appropriate remedy.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDavid Wright-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherUniversity of Western Australia Law School-
dc.rightsCopyright of articles published in The University of Western Australia Law Review remains with the individual authors.-
dc.source.urihttp://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uwatlw38&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals&id=38-
dc.titleUnity in remedies - finding the best remedy - the adequacy of common law remedies-
dc.typeJournal article-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Law publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
RA_hdl_108922.pdf
  Restricted Access
Restricted Access440.25 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.